Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of athletes from Montana/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 21:17, 14 October 2011.

List of athletes from Montana

 * Nominator(s): Pumpkin Sky   talk  13:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I want the lists of Montanans to be as good as possible. Thanks for the reviews. Pumpkin Sky  talk  13:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Albacore (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * 1) As a proponent of British English I find the use of "athletes" in the title to be misleading, though of course I understand the use of AmE for an obviously US-related article. There are other articles that use "sportspeople" instead, so List of sportspeople from Montana might be an alternative to discuss.
 * I think it better to stay with AmE for an US article. Sportspeople is not something heard here much at all. In fact, I don't know anyone that uses. I can't even remember it being used. Athletes is the norm in the US.
 * I think other lists of US athletes are similarly titled. I favor the AmE version, whatever it is. Sometimes "sports figures" is used, but I don't think it's WP's lingo. -- Montanabw
 * Astute observation by Mike Cline: "the two most prominent british sportspeople I can think of Eric Liddell and Harold Abrahams are refered to as athletes" ??????
 * I did a search on Wikpedia for the word "sportspeople" and the word "athletes" and there seems to be no consensus around the world for preferring either term. In the United States, there is also no consensus use in article titles, although "athletes" seems to be far preferred.  My sense would be to go with "athletes," as that is not only the local terminology but is the preferred term in articles and lists about American people participating in sports (HAH!).  - Tim1965 (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Robin Selvig appears to be a coach and not a player, thus the term "athlete" does not necessarily apply. violet/riga [talk] 21:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Self-correction: he is one of a few that once played but are possibly only notable for their coaching career. violet/riga [talk] 21:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think coaches can "count" -- they are, inherently, atheletes first, as a rule.  Montanabw (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the bottom line is 1) wiki has no firm rule on this, 2) US English virtually never uses "sportspeople" and trying to force that would like Yanks trying to get "whilst" replaced with "while" used in an article about Britain, adn 3) TRM reviewed this, is a Brit, and didn't mention this as being an issue.
 * I haven't said that it's an issue - I said that it's "an alternative to discuss". violet/riga [talk] 22:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for clarifying.


 * 1) The first paragraph details aspects of Montana that I would not say are related, such as the nicknames and the economy breakdown.
 * Hmm. Not directly related but fills in what Montana is. See next item too.
 * This might be relevant, if somehow the point could be made that a small-population state with poor economy cannot sustain either major league teams, major league collegiate or high school sports, and provides little opportunity for in-state professional athletics. If such could be found. (I doubt anyone makes such an explicit argument, however.) - Tim1965 (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Are any Montana teams famous? Were there any important sporting events in Montana's history?  Perhaps these could be included instead of the above.
 * No. Montana is WAAAY too small in population to have ever had a major league sports franchise. As for events, not that I can think of. I'll ask around though. This is part of the reason I added the stuff in the item immediately above. Pumpkin Sky  talk  20:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We export our finest, sad to say, although our college football teams have won several national championships in their various divisions (UM and MSU are usually placed in a division one step down from the biggest schools, Carroll College is something like 5 or 6 times champion in the NAIA group of smaller schools) But here, it's the PEOPLE we are listing. No real famous sports teams/events, our biggest community is just a bit over 100,000 people in the metro area and the whole state is still under population of 1 million.   We've hosted the AERC national Endurance race and used to host the College National Finals Rodeo, but that's about it.   Montanabw (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been isolated famous sporting events. Todd Foster made his professional boxing debut in Montana. The Jack Dempsey vs. Tommy Gibbons title boxing fight was held in the state in 1923. But such events would need to be tied to people from Montana, not mentioned in and of themselves (as was pointed out above). - Tim1965 (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

violet/riga [talk] 16:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not sure if I'm a fan of the limetime section for each column. That can be found by clicking the person, and it doesn't seem to add anything to the article currently. If it's too much to remove it then that's fine, and others may disagree with my opinion. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 03:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since no one has mentioned this and I've seen other lists with lifetime sections, I'm guessing most people don't have a problem with it. Though I can't say that for sure. What percentage of people lists has a lifetime (birth-death) section? Pumpkin Sky   talk  10:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I haven't seen many of these more general type lists come through, so I don't have much to compare it to. I'll support since others are fine with it, even though it still strikes me as a bit odd. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 16:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The list itself is fantastic, but Montana's national parks, nicknames, and mountains are completely irrelevant. Link to Montana and get right into the athletes. Also, have an athlete-related photo a the top, not the location of the state. Also, don't use the table title function because you already have section titles. Reywas92 Talk 22:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad you like the list. As for "parks, mountains, nicknames" I can see trimming this down but I don't think it should totally removed because 1) most people would be "WTF is Montana?" and 2) Rambling Man thought it was important enough for me to add refs so I can't satisfy both his request and yours as they are inherently contradictory and it would make the lead rather short. The table title function is required by WP:ACCESS (Killervogel5 can explain this in detail). As Montana is a cowboy state I've put the rodeo clown photo at the top along with the map. You're the first to mention the map and I think it's important to keep it as even most Americans can't find Montana on a map. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why the article should link to Montana. There are dozens of other articles relating to the state, and just because people might not know much about it doesn't mean that this should just copy the first paragraph of it. The lead should contain information about Montana's athletes not its geography, which is irrelevant here. Again, if someone doesn't know where Montana is they can follow the link to the main article; the map here is unnecessary. Reywas92 Talk 17:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It does link to Montana, the very first word. You're the only one to object to the first para, which I cut a bit from yesterday, and the only one to object to the map. TRM even liked the first para, asking for more refs even. I can't please him and please you on this. Since you're the only one to object to this so far, I'm leaving it in for now. And again, cutting it would raise the ire of those wanting more than one para. This is one reason I'm disenchanted with the featured process on wiki. Different want different things, so reviews are not standard and you get contradictory desires from reviewers. This is nuts. Pumpkin Sky  talk  17:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem introducing a little of the history etc of the state. I know zero about Montana so that kind of background is welcome to me.  And we only have to wait until para two before we get to athletes.  And given this is no doubt part of a series, I can see the intro being an important and consistent start to all other similar lists.  All good in the hood.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * MOS:BEGIN. Define the topic. Get to the point. By reading the current first paragraph, I still have no idea what's included in the list. You should not be going on about the state, you should get straight to the athetes. Don't know about Montana? That's what wikilinks are for. Go to List of Governors of Montana. Know zero about Montana? There's a handy link in the first sentence. I shouldn't be told about the state's geography if I'm reading an article about its politics, or in this case athletes. At the very least, DON'T copy the lead of Montana verbatim! Unrelated: Template:Dynamic list should be placed right above the list, not at the very top of the article. There should not be a header 'Athletes' because we already know that from the title; start with the first sport. Reywas92 Talk 03:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * More disagreements about what to do in a FL. Unreal. One person tells me to the dynamic blurb in one spot, in another I'm told to place it in a different spot. Unreal. You guys really need to get on the same wavelength. It seems to me you're merely trying to push your personal view of what a FL should more than what is actually required. I'm sick of getting contradictory reviews. Pumpkin Sky  talk  11:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of the FL process is learning to balance what reviewers want. FLC is not a one-reviewer process like GAN. Not every reviewer sees or wants the same thing. If you are asked for something and another reviewer has already asked for it to be changed, just say that and move on, or, if the other reviewer insists, ask for a reason and then perhaps draw the initial reviewer back to the discussion to get multiple opinions. Don't think of the reviews as contradictory (even though they may be); just treat it as a learning process. Me personally, I'm OK with the lead, and I agree with TRM. A little bit of introduction to what Montana is before expounding on the specific scope of the list hurts nobody, especially because not all en-Wiki readers are from the U.S. The reference to MOS:BEGIN is appropriate, because it states, in part: "It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it". In this case, it establishes the context of the topic (Montanan athletes) by supplying facts that surround it (information about Montana). Every state is unique and has factors that contribute to the articles (for example, you're much more likely to find mountain climbers in Montana than Missouri, just as you would be more likely to find sailors in Florida than in Colorado). &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  12:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well stated, KV5. I've removed the "athletes" section header. Pumpkin Sky   talk  13:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No sorry, I totally disagree with the inclusion of irrelevant content in the first paragraph. The nicknames and slogans, for example, have absolutely no link to sport and should not be included.  I would scrap the whole of the first paragraph.  violet/riga [talk] 14:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well that's why this debate is useful because there's clearly no policy or guideline that should have it removed (as explained above by KV5 with respect to MOS:BEGIN in particular) so it's just personal taste at that point. And that's usually governed by consensus, so I guess if two out of five are definitely opposed while three are definitely unopposed, the status quo, for the time being, should remain. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not just down to votes for and votes against, it's about what makes sense and the consensual decision. I see no link whatsoever between the topic and the nickname of Montana - you may as well start defining "sport" there as well.  violet/riga [talk] 16:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to say that unless you area aware of "Montana", a list of athletes from there is somewhat context-less. Where is Montana?   I haven't a clue other than somewhere in the US.  What's the big deal about the state?  Whatever.  It's worthwhile remembering we have an international audience, not an American one.  English speakers will generally know what "sport" means but many may not know what "Montana" is all about, your argument is made of straw.  And yes, vote counting isn't the way to judge consensus but there are clearly two positions here, both argued well and there are more in favour of the status quo than not.  Currently.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a strawman, it's analogous - your writing is generally quite well-worded and neutral but that bit comes off as a little rude. So...
 * If you don't know what "Montana" is then why would you be looking at a list of people from Montana?
 * I don't know about TRM, but for me, curiosity. Three-fourths of the articles I look at on wiki are things I am not familiar with because I like learning new things, simple curiosity. Pumpkin Sky  talk  18:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, which is why I believe that people wanting to know more about Montana would follow the relevant link rather than read some, honestly, not very interesting information about the place at the start of a sports article. violet/riga [talk] 19:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How does knowing that it is nicknamed "Big Sky Country" help?
 * Why not focus more on the demographic (and other) details that directly influence the sporting life of people?
 * Is it landlocked?
 * the map shows that, another reason to include the map Pumpkin Sky  talk  18:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Further, are there rivers/lakes that are used for sporting events? violet/riga [talk] 19:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you ski on the mountains?
 * naturally Pumpkin Sky  talk  18:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't ski on all mountains, and they don't all have resorts. Detailing this would be relevant as it is a sport.  violet/riga [talk] 19:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do most of the listed players compete within Montana, elsewhere in the US, or in other countries?
 * fairly well explained by the notes Pumpkin Sky  talk  18:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But also relevant to the lead. There could be an introduction saying that many play outside of Montana because of the lack of professional leagues/teams/venues/whatever.  violet/riga [talk] 19:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How come the list is not only about athletes (if you want to talk about non-AmE)?
 * There are lots of other things that would fit in far better. violet/riga [talk] 18:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My final note here before I withdraw and watch is that this list is an intersection. An intersection of notable athletes, and Montana.  So what's the harm in a casual reader learning a bit about both in the lead?  Where's the harm? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no harm whatsoever, it is only helpful. Pumpkin Sky  talk  17:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * WITHDRAWN Thanks all, but this has been a complete waste of my time. I won't be submitting any more featured anythings. Pumpkin Sky  talk  19:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * At TRM's request I'll leave this open but right now I've lost all desire to participate. Pumpkin Sky  talk  19:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that you've just done this - as you say at the top of this FLC "I want [this article] to be as good as possible". I have had a go at reworking the lead to show you what I believe it should be like.  I think it works rather well now but will need a few more citations.  You may disagree with the changes, but hopefully you will see it as an improvement.  violet/riga [talk] 20:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Several problems with the "new" lead, including a one-sentence paragraph and information that doesn't fall within the scope of the list. It's a list of notable athletes from Montana. If this team of Native American women isn't even notable enough for an article on the team, much less the players (all other entries are notable singular people), then it doesn't belong in this list and thus shouldn't be in the lead, which is a summary of the same. There's also some fluff to be trimmed (like "and is in fact doubly-landlocked" - in fact is fluff, and what does "doubly-landlocked" even mean?), and U.S. usage is most definitely "sports", not "sport". References are definitely needed for the new information (I don't know if some of it was previously excluded due to lack of references, which would disappoint me). Don't hate it, don't love it. I was fine with it before, and if the above is fixed, I'd be fine with it after. It's six of one to me. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  21:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since these Native American women are not individually identifiable they cannot be added to the list. That doesn't mean that their achievement isn't relevant.  Further, if it's relevant enough for the Montana article then I'd have to say it merits inclusion on this one.  If you don't know what "doubly-landlocked" means then that's down to a gap in your knowledge and to dismiss it as "fluff" is a little odd.  Being doubly-landlocked reduces the likelihood of any the people being adept at water sports, thus being worthy of inclusion (though perhaps with more of an explanation).  Certainly far more relevant than the nicknames of the state.  violet/riga [talk] 21:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To dismiss above comments by TRM as rude and then come back with that strikes me as a pot and kettle problem. Regardless, I understand the concept of "landlocked", and I didn't call "doubly-landlocked" fluff, I said that the words "in fact" are fluff - they add nothing to the encyclopedic value of this list. That being said, the achievement of the Native American women may be relevant to the subject matter of the list, but if they cannot be included in the list, then they cannot be included in the lead, as the lead is a summary of the list's contents. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  22:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I responded to you in the manner that you initiated discussions but really can't see what I said as being particularly rude. Anyway... How can you say that the athletic achievements of these Native American people from Montana should not be part of the article yet accept (to use your word) the fluff that was there previously?  As for the use of "in fact", well that can easily be changed and if you can reword that sentence then be my guest.  violet/riga [talk] 22:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, ok, perhaps you're misunderstanding me. First you say that I "accept the fluff", then you say that "in fact"&mdash;the only fluff to which I referred, although there may be other unneeded verbiage at which I have not closely looked&mdash;can be changed. I didn't accept any fluff, so I think you're misconstruing me a bit there. That being said, I stand by my original statement, especially: "References are definitely needed for the new information... I was fine with it before, and if the above is fixed, I'd be fine with it after". &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  23:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated I was reusing and reapplying your word, not saying that you called other parts fluff. violet/riga [talk] 06:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If I could comment, I prefer my lead from this diff. Albacore (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I know I'm late to the party but I just want to give my two cents. I really think the lead is too much. I've found that FLC in general prefers ornate leads, but this one violates the astonish principle and our general concept of leads, which is to give the user an overall impression of the article quickly. Our article on Barack Obama mentions his presidency first and his "background" second. I would expect something similar here. —Designate (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you expect when people are arguing in favor of leads with single-sentence unref'd paragraphs over the original lead or the KV5 version? Pumpkin Sky  talk  18:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Mature discussion leading to consensus and an improvement of the article? violet/riga [talk] 19:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * single-sentence unref'd paragraphs in the lead are not improvements, not in any featured wiki process. Pumpkin Sky  talk  19:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have pretty much no interest in this article and merely contributed to this process on request. The whole point of a collaborative encyclopaedia is that someone can add something and then someone can improve it.  I made improvements to the lead and specifically said that part of it needed looking at further.  I could have sat back and just said oppose but I take the view that people should help to improve things.  Sadly you don't seem to want to go through this process properly, so I guess the nomination will just fail.  violet/riga [talk] 20:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave up caring about wiki featured processes long, I just don't care and have been waiting for the FLC people to kill it. Pumpkin Sky  talk  20:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And the "FLC people" are looking to see how this discussion pans out. I may move to close this FLC out and start a general discussion on WT:FLC as this is clearly an area for debate.  We need to understand that our "lead" may not be the same as an article "lead" because we may not be expanding on items in the lead as per the normal WP:LEAD instructions.  A list is a different beast, where a decent interesting lead is not a bad thing, even if it doesn't get expanded later.  I can see this is a conflict with current MOS though so that's a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * good point, and it's a real shame that this issue has torpedoed what in all other aspects is a superb list and also totally soured me on all wiki featured processes. Pumpkin Sky  talk  20:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.